I was shocked to see Patton fall to the 4th round. Wish Miami would have taken him. I know the FO says they are happy at wr. No doubt we are better than last year with additions of Wallace, Gibson and Keller but I still think we need some talent there.

I immediately agreed with the analyst that said the E.J. Manuel selection was more of an indictment on how the Bills felt about Geno Smith, Matt Barkley, and Ryan Nassib than it was about who E.J. Manuel is as a quarterback.

The Kyle Long pick was another that really surprised me. This is a kid that has played less than a full season of college football. He'll be a 25 year old rookie that flunked out of Florida St. while trying to play baseball. Experience, durability, and intelligence are the 3 most critical factors when grading an offensive lineman's profile. Nice athlete, but undoubtably benefited from the lineage of his family's ties to the NFL.

Fisher, Fluker, Johnson, Cooper, Warmack, and Joeckel all being off the board by the time the first 10 cards were turned in forced teams into reaching for guys like Long, Pugh, and Menelik Watson.

I immediately agreed with the analyst that said the E.J. Manuel selection was more of an indictment on how the Bills felt about Geno Smith, Matt Barkley, and Ryan Nassib than it was about who E.J. Manuel is as a quarterback.

The Kyle Long pick was another that really surprised me. This is a kid that has played less than a full season of college football. He'll be a 25 year old rookie that flunked out of Florida St. while trying to play baseball. Experience, durability, and intelligence are the 3 most critical factors when grading an offensive lineman's profile. Nice athlete, but undoubtably benefited from the lineage of his family's ties to the NFL.

Fisher, Fluker, Johnson, Cooper, Warmack, and Joeckel all being off the board by the time the first 10 cards were turned in forced teams into reaching for guys like Long, Pugh, and Menelik Watson.

Click to expand...

Was shocked at how high those last three went. Was even shocked to see Mills the LT from Louisiana Tech go so high.

So many guys on that list I wanted. Jeff Baca would have been a nice fit for us in the ZBS so would have Quessenberry. Patton, Poyer and Keenan Allen were all pretty high on my list too. Should have known Ireland wouldn't take a WR before the 4th round anyway.

This might go down as Ireland's worst draft. I have creeping suspicion that he blew this draft bad, considering the picks we had and ammunition to move around. How many more drafts can Ross keep giving this buffoon?!

This might go down as Ireland's worst draft. I have creeping suspicion that he blew this draft bad, considering the picks we had and ammunition to move around. How many more drafts can Ross keep giving this buffoon?!

Click to expand...

I really don't know how you can say that...I'd like to hear your reasoning...

I immediately agreed with the analyst that said the E.J. Manuel selection was more of an indictment on how the Bills felt about Geno Smith, Matt Barkley, and Ryan Nassib than it was about who E.J. Manuel is as a quarterback.

The Kyle Long pick was another that really surprised me. This is a kid that has played less than a full season of college football. He'll be a 25 year old rookie that flunked out of Florida St. while trying to play baseball. Experience, durability, and intelligence are the 3 most critical factors when grading an offensive lineman's profile. Nice athlete, but undoubtably benefited from the lineage of his family's ties to the NFL.

Fisher, Fluker, Johnson, Cooper, Warmack, and Joeckel all being off the board by the time the first 10 cards were turned in forced teams into reaching for guys like Long, Pugh, and Menelik Watson.

Click to expand...

According to your list you think that Menelik Watson should have been a late 7th round pick? Wow. I thought that he was easily one of the best OL I saw play in the entire draft. I can't even imagine a guy who played that well and with such upside lasting until the 7th round. He's a bit older, that's the one negative I see and imo he might turn out to be the best RT in the draft, maybe even a LT.

As far as calculating values, there should be mathematical adjustment for 1st round picks taken in the 4th and so on, 'cause that's a greater value than 3rd round pick selected in the 7th, even tho the spread maybe the same. Opposite goes for reaches. ( I did not see Frederick's name? odd.)

As far as calculating values, there should be mathematical adjustment for 1st round picks taken in the 4th and so on, 'cause that's a greater value than 3rd round pick selected in the 7th, even tho the spread maybe the same. Opposite goes for reaches. ( I did not see Frederick's name? odd.)

Click to expand...

Yep. I was going to mention the same thing. It's not purely linear. It looks like Shariff Floyd is actually the greatest theoretical value. If he's 22 spots low that means he was #1 on Slimm's board.

According to your list you think that Menelik Watson should have been a late 7th round pick? Wow. I thought that he was easily one of the best OL I saw play in the entire draft. I can't even imagine a guy who played that well and with such upside lasting until the 7th round. He's a bit older, that's the one negative I see and imo he might turn out to be the best RT in the draft, maybe even a LT.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say he should've been a 7th round pick, but that's where I had him graded in terms of my interest. In other words, that's where I would've taken him to play right tackle. I don't buy the hype with him. Furthermore, I don't grade offensive lineman high that lack experience. The majority of Watson's pre-draft hype was built upon what was supposed to be outstanding athletic ability before he went to the combine and tested at the bottom of virtually every category. I don't subscribe to the upside, and as I mentioned a long time ago, I didn't like his age.

The real talent to me is found in Cameron Erving and Josue Matias when I study FSU's offensive line.

As far as calculating values, there should be mathematical adjustment for 1st round picks taken in the 4th and so on, 'cause that's a greater value than 3rd round pick selected in the 7th, even tho the spread maybe the same. Opposite goes for reaches. ( I did not see Frederick's name? odd.)

Click to expand...

Despite the Cowboys reaching for Frederick, he wasn't one of the top 26 biggest reaches in my opinion. If I had kept going, Frederick's name would've been included along the way. Fact is, there were that many reaches that were bigger.

He was #99 on my big board and Dallas took him at #31 overall, or a score of -68.... which wouldn't make my top 26 reaches.

I grade these value picks and reaches linear because it provides an absolute reference for everyone to look at without me having to split hairs and go into lengthy explanations.

I'd also disagree that a 1st rounder taken in the 4th round is greater value than a 3rd rounder taken in the 7th if the spread is equal. I only had 25 players with 1st round grades to begin with. The talent pool was much more watered down in the 7th round where a kid who I felt had 3rd round talent (Chris Gragg for example) was taken. The talent pool was much closer together in the 4th round.

I wouldn't necessarily say he should've been a 7th round pick, but that's where I had him graded in terms of my interest. In other words, that's where I would've taken him to play right tackle. I don't buy the hype with him. Furthermore, I don't grade offensive lineman high that lack experience. The majority of Watson's pre-draft hype was built upon what was supposed to be outstanding athletic ability before he went to the combine and tested at the bottom of virtually every category. I don't subscribe to the upside, and as I mentioned a long time ago, I didn't like his age.

The real talent to me is found in Cameron Erving and Josue Matias when I study FSU's offensive line.

Click to expand...

I love how effortlessly he moves at the 2nd level, in a scheme like ours he could even make a good guard as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think it's going to be as big a reach as people think it is.......But I think Barrett Jones was a ****ing steal.

Click to expand...

Way too much hoopla about Dallas messing up the pick. They rated him as a high second rounder and they drafted him at end of 1st. Not every team grades a player the same. I think Frederick will be a fine player , yes they would have been better to trade down but it takes two to tango as Oakland found out

Love the list and I had most of those value picks very high too. The only one I had as a great value pick that I didn't see on your list was Kenny Stills. I think he has potential as a WR. I was a little shocked to see Michael Mauti as such a value pick though ... I thought I was the only person on this board that liked him. I think had he not had so many durability concerns he would have gone higher. Mauti is the type of player that may surprise people. Stash him on IR and let him get his body right and you have a good LB by year 2.

Despite the Cowboys reaching for Frederick, he wasn't one of the top 26 biggest reaches in my opinion. If I had kept going, Frederick's name would've been included along the way. Fact is, there were that many reaches that were bigger.

He was #99 on my big board and Dallas took him at #31 overall, or a score of -68.... which wouldn't make my top 26 reaches.

I grade these value picks and reaches linear because it provides an absolute reference for everyone to look at without me having to split hairs and go into lengthy explanations.

I'd also disagree that a 1st rounder taken in the 4th round is greater value than a 3rd rounder taken in the 7th if the spread is equal. I only had 25 players with 1st round grades to begin with. The talent pool was much more watered down in the 7th round where a kid who I felt had 3rd round talent (Chris Gragg for example) was taken. The talent pool was much closer together in the 4th round.

Click to expand...

Let me step in here as we are dealing with mathematics which is my specialty.

We're talking about standard deviations and such when talking about this. For instance, a guy taken in round 3 who you had projected in round 6, would not be nearly as big of a reach as taking a guy in round 1 who you had projected to go in round 3. In other words, its not just about the number value of how far away a player was taken. There is much more of a difference in talent from round 1 to round 3 than from round 4 to round 6. So you have to be careful about using these numbers to say who was the biggest reach according to your own feelings on the player.

In other words, the difference in your 130th ranked player and your 170th ranked player is much less than the difference in your 10th ranked player and your 50th ranked player. The numerical difference is simply 40 in both cases, however I would say the 50th ranked player going 10th would be a much bigger reach than the 170th ranked player going 130th.

Based on your rankings and not my own, Id say Lemonier was a huge value, perhaps the best value considering where you had him ranked and where he was taken. I too was higher on Lemonier than most, but again that isnt a factor in what his value was....... were using your rankings.

The biggest reach using your rankings was likely still Frederick. I dont know where you had him slotted, you say 2nd round, but unless you had him early to mid 2nd, thats a huge reach at that point. Or no wait...... did Watson go really early? I noticed you had him ranked way down there. Watson is probably still the biggest reach using your rankings, but you see my point about weight of the numbers I hope.

If we went by my rankings, the biggest reach was clearly Geno's Myth, who I had ranked as undraftable.

Let me step in here as we are dealing with mathematics which is my specialty.

We're talking about standard deviations and such when talking about this. For instance, a guy taken in round 3 who you had projected in round 6, would not be nearly as big of a reach as taking a guy in round 1 who you had projected to go in round 3. In other words, its not just about the number value of how far away a player was taken. There is much more of a difference in talent from round 1 to round 3 than from round 4 to round 6. So you have to be careful about using these numbers to say who was the biggest reach according to your own feelings on the player.

In other words, the difference in your 130th ranked player and your 170th ranked player is much less than the difference in your 10th ranked player and your 50th ranked player. The numerical difference is simply 40 in both cases, however I would say the 50th ranked player going 10th would be a much bigger reach than the 170th ranked player going 130th.

Based on your rankings and not my own, Id say Lemonier was a huge value, perhaps the best value considering where you had him ranked and where he was taken. I too was higher on Lemonier than most, but again that isnt a factor in what his value was....... were using your rankings.

The biggest reach using your rankings was likely still Frederick. I dont know where you had him slotted, you say 2nd round, but unless you had him early to mid 2nd, thats a huge reach at that point. Or no wait...... did Watson go really early? I noticed you had him ranked way down there. Watson is probably still the biggest reach using your rankings, but you see my point about weight of the numbers I hope.

If we went by my rankings, the biggest reach was clearly Geno's Myth, who I had ranked as undraftable.

Click to expand...

Let me start off by pointing out that the bolded part here is simply inaccurate, WV. The dropoff in talent is most drastic after the first 8-10 elite prospects are taken. The talent pool from from the 11th player or so on my board, all the way to the 50th best player on my board is typically very similar. The same applies to the next 40-50 players, and so on. There's a lot of hair splitting that goes on when distinguishing these prospects from one another.

By the same token, the talent level from round 4 to round 6 is also very similar. The first steep dropoff in talent in any draft is after the best 8-10 players come off the board, not necessarily the first 8-10 picks. The next steepest dropoff in talent is found after the first 150 or so players are taken. The talent pool for the final 100+ players selected extends all the way to the UDFA pool after the top 150, is just as closely together as the talent from 11-50, just less of it (talent). The talent begins to become extremely watered down in this range. You're hoping to find players that can simply make your roster and provide depth in this range.... which is a longshot.

This is why getting a player of 3rd round ability in the 7th round range is MORE valuable than getting a 1st round player in the 3rd round if the expected linear value is the same. A team got a potential starter here in the range where selecting a guy who can even make your roster is a longshot. That's value.

If you go back to Awsi Dooger's comment regarding how according to my board, Sharrif Floyd should be the best value pick simply because he was the #1 player on my board, the explanation I just gave you should answer his question as to why Floyd wasn't the best value pick of the entire draft. It's because the talent pool where Floyd came off was still populated with elite talent. However, Floyd was the best value pick of the 1st round in my opinion. Which is why there's only one player selected in the 1st round that made my top 64 value picks.... it was Sharrif Floyd.

The biggest reach using my rankings was not Travis Frederick. I had a 3rd round grade on Frederick (99th overall) on my board. Fact is, there were probably bigger reaches in the draft that didn't even make my top 26. The reason they didn't make my list is because I had not scouted those players, therefore I can't comment on how big of a reach that selection was. There were players taken that I had never even heard of.... and if you're taking players that I haven't scouted or heard of before, that's saying something. Trust me.

Selection value simply based how they were ranked according to my board is best explained using the absolute difference in a linear fashion that I provided. Asking me who I think are going to be the best pros regardless of where they were selected is an entirely different subject. Corey Lemonier is a fine example.

I'm surprised you didn't have S Duron Harmon as one of the big reaches. Common belief was that he was a 7th rounder or even UFDA. I came to him late on and posted in the Draft Forum that I couldn't believe this kid wasn't higher on boards or asked to the Combine. I couldn't see the issue with the kid that would have him close to undrafted.

I think I said in the post that he looked at least a fourth rounder to me, but I didn't believe for a minute that any NFL team would take him there - let alone in the third.

I have to say I like him. I think it's awful value in Round 3 though, as nobody would have looked sideways at this kid until at least round 5, more likely 6 or 7. But, when it all shakes out, he could be one of the best safety prospects going into the NFL this year.

I'm surprised you didn't have S Duron Harmon as one of the big reaches. Common belief was that he was a 7th rounder or even UFDA. I came to him late on and posted in the Draft Forum that I couldn't believe this kid wasn't higher on boards or asked to the Combine. I couldn't see the issue with the kid that would have him close to undrafted.

I think I said in the post that he looked at least a fourth rounder to me, but I didn't believe for a minute that any NFL team would take him there - let alone in the third.

I have to say I like him. I think it's awful value in Round 3 though, as nobody would have looked sideways at this kid until at least round 5, more likely 6 or 7. But, when it all shakes out, he could be one of the best safety prospects going into the NFL this year.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't find Harmon enough of a reach in the 3rd round to make the top 26 reaches. I supposed if I just kept going and listed every single reach in the draft, sure he would've made it at some point. The one's I listed here were what I felt to be the most significant in terms of how they were on my board. Keep in mind, that just because a player was a reach according to this thread, and has a negative number next to it, doesn't mean I necessarily dislike the pick that much. There are other factors to consider.

About a year ago in July, Harmon was actually the #16 safety on my board heading into the season last year, and it's probably safe to give Belichek the benefit of the doubt when it comes to safeties. I don't know of anybody that didn't piss all over his pick of Tavon Wilson last year in the 2nd round with safeties like Brandon Taylor and George Iloka still on the board. Wilson turned out to be a pretty good player.

I agree with you that if he wanted Harmon he could've gotten him later. But if you like the player, take him.

Let me start off by pointing out that the bolded part here is simply inaccurate, WV. The dropoff in talent is most drastic after the first 8-10 elite prospects are taken. The talent pool from from the 11th player or so on my board, all the way to the 50th best player on my board is typically very similar. The same applies to the next 40-50 players, and so on. There's a lot of hair splitting that goes on when distinguishing these prospects from one another.

By the same token, the talent level from round 4 to round 6 is also very similar. The first steep dropoff in talent in any draft is after the best 8-10 players come off the board, not necessarily the first 8-10 picks. The next steepest dropoff in talent is found after the first 150 or so players are taken. The talent pool for the final 100+ players selected extends all the way to the UDFA pool after the top 150, is just as closely together as the talent from 11-50, just less of it (talent). The talent begins to become extremely watered down in this range. You're hoping to find players that can simply make your roster and provide depth in this range.... which is a longshot.

This is why getting a player of 3rd round ability in the 7th round range is MORE valuable than getting a 1st round player in the 3rd round if the expected linear value is the same. A team got a potential starter here in the range where selecting a guy who can even make your roster is a longshot. That's value.

If you go back to Awsi Dooger's comment regarding how according to my board, Sharrif Floyd should be the best value pick simply because he was the #1 player on my board, the explanation I just gave you should answer his question as to why Floyd wasn't the best value pick of the entire draft. It's because the talent pool where Floyd came off was still populated with elite talent. However, Floyd was the best value pick of the 1st round in my opinion. Which is why there's only one player selected in the 1st round that made my top 64 value picks.... it was Sharrif Floyd.

The biggest reach using my rankings was not Travis Frederick. I had a 3rd round grade on Frederick (99th overall) on my board. Fact is, there were probably bigger reaches in the draft that didn't even make my top 26. The reason they didn't make my list is because I had not scouted those players, therefore I can't comment on how big of a reach that selection was. There were players taken that I had never even heard of.... and if you're taking players that I haven't scouted or heard of before, that's saying something. Trust me.

Selection value simply based how they were ranked according to my board is best explained using the absolute difference in a linear fashion that I provided. Asking me who I think are going to be the best pros regardless of where they were selected is an entirely different subject. Corey Lemonier is a fine example.

Click to expand...

This can't be right. The talent pool almost certainly follows a normal distribution (bell curve) as WV suggests and not the linear distribution you described. That means that the difference between the 22nd ranked player and the 42nd ranked player is always going to be greater than the difference between the 42nd ranked player and the 62nd ranked player.

This can't be right. The talent pool almost certainly follows a normal distribution (bell curve) as WV suggests and not the linear distribution you described. That means that the difference between the 22nd ranked player and the 42nd ranked player is always going to be greater than the difference between the 42nd ranked player and the 62nd ranked player.

Click to expand...

Assuming your theory here is accurate, it only proves my point that Menelik Watson was the biggest reach in the draft if in fact, the difference in talent is greater from #22 (Desmond Trufant) to #42 (Menelik Watson) than it is from #42 (Watson) to #62 (Christine Michael).

The difference in talent between the 22nd player and the 42nd player depends entirely on who the two players were that were drafted with these two picks. Same applies to the 42nd player and the 62nd player. If Atlanta had selected Anthony Amos with the 22nd pick, are you going to tell me that the talent gap between him and the team that picked Tank Carradine at #42 is greater than the talent gap between Carradine and Eddie Lacy at #62? Of course not. The talent gap between two picks is always entirely dependent on who the two picks were.

I don't subscribe at all to the theory that the talent gap between Brandon Weeden (#22 in last year's draft) and Jonathan Martin (#42 in last year's draft) is greater than the talent gap between Jonathan Martin and Casey Hayward (#62 in last year's draft).

Players with 1st round talent fall into the 2nd round for a variety of reasons, most of them deemed to be correctable. I've had 9 players that I graded as 1st rounders all with the same grade. I've had 9 players that I graded as 4th rounders all with the same grade. Fact is, there's no such thing as the 22nd best player in the draft or the 42nd best player in the draft. 100 evaluators are going to have 100 different draft boards.

If you're a team that runs C2 and prefers huge CB's, you're going to have a completely different looking draft board in terms of CB's than a team that likes to play man coverage, because you're prioritizing a completely different set of skills.

The purpose of this thread was nothing more than showing where some players were actually selected in comparison to how I had them graded. On somebody else's board they may see all my value picks as reaches, and all my reaches as value picks. 3 years down the road we're going to find out about every single one of 'em either way.

The majority of elite players are typically off the board in the first 15 picks. After that, the talent pool from that point all the way through the next 25-30 players is fairly similar. The talent pool from that point to 150 is fairly similar. Then there's another steep dropoff similar to the magnitude of the one that happened after the first 15 picks. The talent pool from 150 through the UDFA pool is fairly similar. These are players that are considered to have flaws that aren't correctable.

The point is, your odds of finding elite talent drops all throughout the draft. It just drops at different rates. If you study the draft closely and the history of it. you'll understand where the steepest dropoffs occur.

When you look at the statistics involved with the draft since it went to 7 rounds in 1994, the percentages tell you the value of draft picks. If you look at every draft from 1994-2007, because the 2007 class is the most recent one that has had time for all of the players to fully develope, and essentially become what they are... the percentages tell you where the talent is found.

Basically what you have here over these 14 drafts are 3,502 players drafted / 412 made at least 1 pro-bowl..... or about 11%.

Of those 412 who made at least 1 pro-bowl / 183 were 1st round picks.... or about 44%.

85 were 2nd round picks.... or about 20%. Your chances of getting a pro-bowl player is more than cut in half from Round 1 to Round 2.

144 were selected in rounds 3-7.... or about 35%. You have about a 7% chance of getting a pro-bowl player in the 3rd round, and it drops to below 5% in every subsequent round.

If you look a little closer, 79 of the 183 pro-bowlers that were selected in the 1st round were all top 10 picks.... or about 43%. This is why it's so important to draft for TALENT instead of need, especially in the top 15.

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.

After that, you're simply trying to get rosterable players to acquire depth. This is where competent GM's begin drafting for need, while still taking talent into consideration. You never cease to keep TALENT at the top of your priority list... you simply increase how much impact need has on your selection.

As the statistics clearly show, your chances of getting an elite player decrease dramatically after the first 15 picks. Your chances of getting an elite player is virtually the same from 15-32 as it is from 32-47. That's why people like Belichek value 2nd round picks so much, and is constantly trading down from late round 1 into the early part of round 2. He knows that his chances of getting an elite player is the same in the first half of the 2nd round as it is in the 2nd half of the 1st round.... he just doesn't have to deal with a 1st round contract.

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

When you look at the statistics involved with the draft since it went to 7 rounds in 1994, the percentages tell you the value of draft picks. If you look at every draft from 1994-2007, because the 2007 class is the most recent one that has had time for all of the players to fully develope, and essentially become what they are... the percentages tell you where the talent is found.

Basically what you have here over these 14 drafts are 3,502 players drafted / 412 made at least 1 pro-bowl..... or about 11%.

Of those 412 who made at least 1 pro-bowl / 183 were 1st round picks.... or about 44%.

85 were 2nd round picks.... or about 20%. Your chances of getting a pro-bowl player is more than cut in half from Round 1 to Round 2.

144 were selected in rounds 3-7.... or about 35%. You have about a 7% chance of getting a pro-bowl player in the 3rd round, and it drops to below 5% in every subsequent round.

If you look a little closer, 79 of the 183 pro-bowlers that were selected in the 1st round were all top 10 picks.... or about 43%. This is why it's so important to draft for TALENT instead of need, especially in the top 15.

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.After that, you're simply trying to get rosterable players to acquire depth. This is where competent GM's begin drafting for need, while still taking talent into consideration. You never cease to keep TALENT at the top of your priority list... you simply increase how much impact need has on your selection.

As the statistics clearly show, your chances of getting an elite player decrease dramatically after the first 15 picks. Your chances of getting an elite player is virtually the same from 15-32 as it is from 32-47. That's why people like Belichek value 2nd round picks so much, and is constantly trading down from late round 1 into the early part of round 2. He knows that his chances of getting an elite player is the same in the first half of the 2nd round as it is in the 2nd half of the 1st round.... he just doesn't have to deal with a 1st round contract.

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

Click to expand...

This was exactly my point. If you draft a player who you had listed as first round talent(Lemonier for example) in round 3, its a much greater value than drafting someone ranked even as high as round 4 in round 7. Even though its 3 rounds difference instead of just two, its less value than getting the 1st round caliber player in round 3.

FWIW btw, the Herbal Badger was the best value of the entire draft IMHO. I had the kid ranked as one of the best 5 players in the entire draft and the Cards got him in round 3. Thats a steal. Straight up.

Come to think of it, Stedman Bailey was probably an even better value considering he went even later than the Herbal Badger. Best WR in a draft loaded with WR talent taken in the late 3rd. Thats value.

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.

<snip>

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

Click to expand...

Those were the points I was trying to make prior to the draft, that I'd prioritize first round to early second round every year, even if it meant I'd have to skip the 3rd and perhaps the 4th round completely. Take your best shot at premier talent early, like the Vikings did, and then fill the roster with 5th through 7th rounders, along with both types of free agents.

We had 12 and 42. Both were borderline. You'd prefer to be a couple of notches higher, in each case. I would have been tempted to stay put, and use 54, 77 and 82 to move within the top 40. The trade to 3 was sensible, given the cost and potential payoff of a supreme athlete, but damn it stung when you consider it only allowed one pick in the premium top 40 or 42, instead of a guaranteed 2, and possibly 3 if we'd packaged our second tier resources, the ones that are invariably overvalued.

Anyway, regarding the numbers in this thread I can see Slimm's point, that it's more convenient and straightforward to use the linear numbers. Everything else requires too much explanation and interpretation. It's similar to when I share a betting angle with a friend. I'll hand them the system that's easiest to follow and with the greatest sample size, even if a more complicated version with several twists produces a somewhat higher percentage.

1. Each draft is unique.
While in aggregate we can see patterns, that doesn't translate into accurate projections for an individual draft.

2. Selections are in serial but grades aren't.
If a team has 10 guys rated all with the same grade, they would select them at 10 different spots, but that doesn't change the fact that the team graded them all similarly. Also, while the selection spot between 50 and 51 may be 1 spot difference, which isn't much, the team may have them graded as the last player with a high grade and the first player with a significantly lower grade. Many GM's will trade back if they think some of the similarly graded guys will make it to a later pick, and trade up when they think their pick is after a significant dropoff.

3. All teams pick for need to some extent.
Yes, every GM likes to talk about drafting the best player available, and to a certain degree they do, but the majority of a team's picks fill specific needs. Ireland calls it lateral drafting, but essentially, when the grades are similar he fills needs. Even the vaunted Ravens draft for need to a certain extent, and we saw it again this year.

4. Rarely is there uniform depth at a position in a draft.
So, looking at where players were picked often is skewed by the demand for the position (a function of need and utility) vs. the supply at various points in the talent pool. We saw a lack of supply for elite WR's this year, but an oversupply of promising prospects teams had graded as round 2 or 3 prospects. That lead to many WR's being pushed down. Guys like Kenny Stills, Keenan Allen and Ryan Swope all had reasons they weren't chosen higher, but in other drafts guys like that would have been chosen higher by teams willing to take the chance on them because of less-deep talent pools.

5. Value is dependent on the roster.
A team like San Francisco has a talented roster from top to bottom. While they could make a pick that ranks as a good value pick, the guy could still fail to make the roster. Some would argue that it is still a value pick, and I can see that reasoning. But personally, I see value as the chance to make the roster and how much they can improve the team. So, a guy like Lattimore may be a risky injury pick, but still a value pick for San Fran because the chance of any player making their roster at that pick is not good. Lattimore has as good of a shot as any, and their situation allows for them to stash him on the IR and enjoy the benefits of a good RB taken in a mid round selection down the road. I wouldn't see the same value from a team like Cincinnati or Green Bay who really want someone to step in now.

Anyway, great analysis Slim, and a very good discussion throughout this thread.

I wouldn't necessarily say he should've been a 7th round pick, but that's where I had him graded in terms of my interest. In other words, that's where I would've taken him to play right tackle. I don't buy the hype with him. Furthermore, I don't grade offensive lineman high that lack experience. The majority of Watson's pre-draft hype was built upon what was supposed to be outstanding athletic ability before he went to the combine and tested at the bottom of virtually every category. I don't subscribe to the upside, and as I mentioned a long time ago, I didn't like his age.

The real talent to me is found in Cameron Erving and Josue Matias when I study FSU's offensive line.

Click to expand...

I was disappointed with Watson's running at the combine as well, claims of him being a 4.7-4.8 guy were clearly rubbish.

Nonetheless- the size, the power, the hand punch, the quick reflexes, the solid base, the run blocking, lateral movement on the kickslide, the pass blocking- all of it was there on film imo, in spades. In games and in clips I rarely saw Watson get beaten, if he gave up a sack I missed it. he won/dominated nearly all of the time. The one thing that bothered me were his feet- they're good feet, but I was expecting Lane Johnson & D'Brickashaw Ferguson feet quickness (and Lane Johnson type speed) and it just wasn't there.

But good Lord can this guy play- the quick hands and reflexes- and solid footwork- show themselves and speak well of his training in boxing and basketball. Watson is a devastating run blocker and he just neutralizes power and speed rushers, a neatly ideal RT imo who might very well be able to play LT. As per your last comment, another FSU OL cetainly caught my eye, it might have been Cameron Erving.

Erving is the kid that interested me out of those two. They converted him from defensive tackle in spring practice 2 years ago. He's been the best player on FSU's offensive line at left tackle in my opinion since he made the conversion.

Those were the points I was trying to make prior to the draft, that I'd prioritize first round to early second round every year, even if it meant I'd have to skip the 3rd and perhaps the 4th round completely. Take your best shot at premier talent early, like the Vikings did, and then fill the roster with 5th through 7th rounders, along with both types of free agents.

Click to expand...

Boy you must REALLY love the Vikings' draft then, lol. Pretty much the epitome of what you're talking about.

Erving is the kid that interested me out of those two. They converted him from defensive tackle in spring practice 2 years ago. He's been the best player on FSU's offensive line at left tackle in my opinion since he made the conversion.

Him and Matias are really good prospects.

Click to expand...

I liked what I saw of Tre' Jackson as well next to Watson at RG, interesting combo of size, power and mobility.